Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - fathomak

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
31
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 07:36:51 PM »
Quote
No, you can't. You could be a figment of our imagination, an alien, a robot, an unexplained atmospheric phenomenon ... the possibilites are endless.


That doesn't mean I don't exist.  All it means is I might not be human.

32
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 07:34:53 PM »
Prove that any reciprocal lattice vector K is an integral multiple of the shortest parallel reciprocal lattice vector K0.

33
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 07:08:16 PM »
Quote
There is no such thing as 100% certainty.


Are you 100% certain?

34
Flat Earth Q&A / My official resignation
« on: November 07, 2006, 06:57:27 PM »
I have decided that I no longer have the time nor the willpower to continue to be a member of these forums.  There is no convincing FEers, and college is very demanding.  If anyone ever says, "where's fathomak?" just tell them I was killed on the adventure of Victorian proportions or something of the like.  Good day.

35
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 06:32:05 PM »
Quote
God's were created to help us understand earthquakes, floods, famine, everything, they gave us an answer...how is this any different from today's world?


But by definition of a "god," could a god truly be created by men?

In any case, in response to the rest of your post, I never meant to say that people don't believe things for such trivial reasons, just that it frequently is not the case.  A lot of perfectly sane people do have valid reasons for choosing to believe one thing over another.

36
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 06:26:16 PM »
Quote
Myspace sucks, it's for idiots...


Let's not assume personal opinion to be absolute truth, and make overgeneralizations about myspace users... I personally don't care for myspace.

37
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 06:22:17 PM »
Quote
If god exists, where is he? I don't see him anywhere. I haven't seen any definative scientific proof of him either. All I get are tall tails about god or gods or spirits from old books and other people, but none of them ever met god either, they just believe, without ever thinking that maybe, just maybe, there is no god. But no, there HAS to be! Why? Because I simply cannot believe otherwise, that is why.



Morons.






Come now, don't you think perhaps that's a little ignorant?  You assume that people choose to believe in a god or gods simply because they cannot accept the alternative; however, people have put forth a number of good reasons for believing so.  Of course there's the usual "where did we come from?" question, which I hope you realize has not been fully answered.  It is my personal belief that the big bang model provides an accurate account of the universe for the past 12-15 billion years or so, but it hardly answers all questions about creation.

There is also the fact that humans in general seem to be endowed with an inherent sense of right and wrong in the world which is non-existant in the wider animal kingdom.  I am not speaking purely about laws and doing what is legal or illegal, but morally acceptable or unacceptable.  There seem to be unwritten rules about what is allowed and what is forbidden, and guilt is a general consequence of performing actions that we perhaps should not.  Many people believe that humans must then have been endowed with such sense by a higher being or creator.  C.S. Lewis puts it better than I do for anyone who wishes to read this:

Quote from: "C.S. Lewis"
... Some of the letters I have had show that a good many people find it difficult to understand just what this Law of Human Nature, or Moral Law, or Rule of Decent Behavior is.

For example, some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires one desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

Here is a third way of seeing it. If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call 'good,' always in agreement with the rule of right behaviors. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses say mother love or patriotism are good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the 'right' notes and the 'wrong' ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.

By the way, the point is of great practical consequence. The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set up as an absolute guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not. If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and faking evidence in trials 'for the sake of humanity', and become in the end a cruel and treacherous man.

Other people wrote to me saying 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law just a social convention, something that is put into us by education?' I think there is a misunderstanding here. The people who ask that question are usually taking it for granted that if we have learned a thing from parents and teachers, then that thing must be merely a human invention. But, of course, that is not so. We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked? I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behaviour from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The questions is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.

There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great not nearly so great as most people imagine and you can recognize the same lay running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road of the kinds or clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers of Pioneers people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people thing, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something some Real Morality for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer of less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said 'New York' each means merely 'The town I am imagining in my own head', how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve', there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had even been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world would ever grow morally better or morally worse.

I conclude then, that though the difference between people's ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite. But one word before I end. I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between difference of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, 'Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?' But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simple about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believes there were no mice in the house.   -    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/mere1.html

38
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 06:03:29 PM »
Well then we need a new question.  Any good ones?

39
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 05:58:59 PM »
You could see your brain.  I worked with neuroscientists over the summer two years ago dealing with epillepsy.  They would open the top portion of the skull and place electrodes directly on the brain to try and detect where seizures were originating.  With the proper anesthetics, all it would take is a mirror or two for you to look directly at your own brain.  That's not to say you'd remember any of it, but that's a different story.

Then again, there are always lobotomies.

40
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 05:51:32 PM »
Quote from: "Rossk #5!!"
I'd be more than happy to spam this website enough to bring it down, also. But am I doing so? No.


I doubt you'd come close.

EDIT: DOUBLE POST'D

41
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 05:50:49 PM »
Quote
...But this is an argument for nerds


Yes, if only we could talk about more substantial things like women and myspace, this topic would be so much cooler.

42
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 05:47:32 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
The point, once again, is that all you really know is that thinking itself exists.


Does that not then lead to the fact that I exist?  Yes, thinking exists, you agree.  Developing and argument and making the claim that thinking exists requires thought, so I must think.  I am thinking, and the thinking is me.  Since thinking exists and I am thinking, I exist.

43
Flat Earth Q&A / Funny...
« on: November 07, 2006, 04:39:58 PM »
Quote
Whether or not something is un-American has no bearing on whether or not it is true.


Yes it does.  Don't you know anything?  America is always right.

44
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Are dodoes still alive?
« on: November 07, 2006, 04:37:48 PM »
Quote
Don't you guys know better than to meddle with very life itself? Sheesh. I hope you learn a valuable lesson from all this!


Valuable indeed!  We'll be rich!

45
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 04:36:44 PM »
Darn.

46
Flat Earth Q&A / Sinking effect, not a question trying to prove FE false
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:19:21 PM »
So what's the likelyhood that the earth would become a little tilted relative to the direction of the UA and start spinning violently, throwing everyone and everything to their immediate doom?

47
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:17:03 PM »
Eh.

48
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Are dodoes still alive?
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:15:05 PM »
Quote
As long as we can get the DNA from the mosquitos we could probably make some dinosaurs... Hmmm... now you got me thinking...


Yes, Knight, would you like to make a theme park with me?  We can have it on an island, and people could come and see real live dinosaurs that we brought back to life... it would be great!  We could call it, "Pre-Cretaceous Funworld."

49
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:11:42 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "fathomak"
Give me an example of something that functions that does not exist.


I meant, if logic is fundamentally flawed, existence may not be a necessary condition for a function.


Agreed.


Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "fathomak"
I exist.


How do you know?



Let's suppose for a moment that I don't.  Then this entire time you've been communicating with something that doesn't exist, and thus you're a looney.

50
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:08:48 PM »
What is the square root of i?

51
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:07:32 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
Quote from: "fathomak"
QED



When are you actually going to get around to doing that?




No, silly, it means "quantum electrodynamics."  In any case, you might want to try scrolling up from your last post.

52
Flat Earth Q&A / Sinking effect, not a question trying to prove FE false
« on: November 07, 2006, 03:03:01 PM »
You're making an assumption that the earth would be too weak to withstand these forces.  Perhaps it is only the surface that is dirt, and underneath there is some unknown substance of incredible strength.

53
Flat Earth Q&A / The Problem with Eclipses
« on: November 07, 2006, 02:57:30 PM »
I'm going to answer a question put forth on page one which I doubt has yet recieved this response, though I haven't gone through all 15 pages to look:

Quote
They can't cast a shadow on the moon to give the illusion that the world is round


Here it comes...
...
...
...
...
...
...




























54
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 02:52:24 PM »
Quote
it would be a mistake to believe something must exist to function


Give me an example of something that functions that does not exist.

I will simplify the previous statement:



I exist.

55
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 02:45:55 PM »
Well, here's the answer (I think) to my previous question:

Quote from: "fathomak"
Which is larger, the set of all positive real integers or the set of all primes?


First we have to show that the set of all primes is, in fact, infinite.  Fortunately, Euclid has done this for us:
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html



So now I am going to claim they are equal.  To do so, lets define a few conditions:

Let P be the set of all primes {p1, p2, ...pm}, where pi = pj if and only if i = j.

Let S be the set of all positive real integers {1, 2, ...n}.

Now we will define R to be a transformation from S to P (R: S -> P) such that for some element s in S, R(s) = ps

It is easy to see that the mapping R: S -> P is one-to-one.

Consider a and b, elements of the set S.  Then if R(a) = R(b), it implies a = b.
R(a) = pa
R(b) = pb

Then pa = pb, but pi = pj if and only if i = j, so we conclude that a = b, and R: S -> P is one-to-one.

It is also easy to see that R: S -> P is onto, for any pk in P can be obtained by R(k).

Since R is one-to-one and onto, we can conclude that the sets are the same size.



QED

56
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 02:04:49 PM »
Quote
Therefore, 1/infinity is the smallest possible positive number: 0.00000...1


You have to add zeros infinitely.  The limit is just zero.

57
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 01:57:57 PM »
Quote from: "Knight"
Quote from: "fathomak"
I can prove that I exist.



I doubt it.


Cogito ergo sum.

QED

58
The Lounge / God does not exist
« on: November 07, 2006, 01:53:11 PM »
Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"
You can't prove anything exists, so stop trying.


I can prove that I exist.

59
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 10:26:58 AM »
I think this is a better question:

Which is larger, the set of all positive real integers, or the set of all primes?

60
The Lounge / 0.9... = 1
« on: November 07, 2006, 10:15:50 AM »
Quote
Wrong; 1/9 = 0.1111... + 1/(9 * infinity). Multiply by nine, and you get that 1 = .99999... + 1/(infinity), which is equal to 1 (1/(infinity) = 1/10000...).


...uh, no?  1 = .99999.... + 1/(infinity) is not equal to 1(1/(infinity)).  If we subtract .99999.... from both sides, all we've shown is 1 - .99999.... = 1/(infinity) = 0.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7